Htsguy

^Article should be posted in general UC thread, not the Cleveland Clinic thread

^And I still won't want to live there

The project is up for final approval at this Fridays Planning Commission meeting. Hopefully it can break ground before the end of the year but it always seems it takes forever between final approval and ground breaking. This project will really help this end of UC.

I think it has been a couple of years since the last time Landmarks denied Stark's application to demo the building. Right after that I thought Gateway was going to get together with Stark Enterprises and finally really work to find a solution to the many roadblocks (primarily economic) preventing rehabilitation of the building and even coupling it with a new build. Since then it has been "crickets" and the building, I am sure, continues to deteriorate. Don't know whose fault this but my vote is Stark. Ironic that they purchased the building from those California investors which had been battling forever in Cleveland Housing Court with every intention of being the building's savoir.

I have always thought that would be an incredible idea. This coming from somebody who attended many movie matinees with my grandmother on the Square when I was a small kid.

I was reading the article this morning without first noting the author. I got about one third through it and it hit me that it had to be Steve Litt's reporting, which it was. His style gets old after a while. Even when he is writing about positive events or developments, he cannot help frame them with his tried and true Cleveland negatives. It is like he does't even have to type them out a new...he has them stored in his computer and he just has to punch a key and up they pop.

I don't know the answer to your primary question but if true, couldn't the developer get around such a restriction by simply paying rent to the LLC. The rent would probably have to be similar to market rents negotiated at arms length. Probably does not make sense except for a short term situation even if the LLC is earning income from the rental, especially depending on the tax situation of the LLC.

I think this has been reported and posted a while back. If I recall correctly it is only a couple of top office floors. MRN is the developer.

If that is the case I hope this means they need to seriously start thinking about Phase 2 on that ridiculous "temporary" surface lot on Superior. I know one or two on the forum will just lobby for a taller building. LOL Sorry I think that ship has sailed.

My mom recently spent 12 day in Hillcrest Hospital and I was pretty much with her all day long and got to meet and chat at length (probably annoying them to no end) with many of the nurses and doctors who were constantly in and out of her room. At least half of the nurses moved to Cleveland from out of state in the last couple of years-places like Baltimore, Erie, Buffalo and Chicago. Two of the younger doctors were recent transplants including a doctor on her surgical team-St. Louis and someplace near Albany. Just a small anecdote. I am sure people on the forum have many similar stories. A number of new marriage in our family also resulted in young guys moving to town rather than the other way around. Philly, Dayton and Milwaukee. I did lose a niece to DC but her husband is looking to get into the state department so not much opportunity here.

Great to see. That said, some interior designers with taste need to set up shop in Little Italy and offer their services LOL

Thanks for the article Ken. I was wondering what the status of this project was after its approval by Planning Commission quite some time ago. It just seemed to be sitting. The question is, what is the next step if this quite substantial federal grant is denied. Do they just keep applying for things until the cows come home? Where are the local corporations and why don't the local foundations contribute to a larger extent. Projects like this are transformative and obviously result in additional development as you spell out. It is very frustrating observing the significant planning done to improve major street corridors and then simply watch them languish due to lack of funding. It seems like it has been forever since the Lorain and Superior Avenue remakes were proposed and it appears we are no where near close to seeing the visions implemented. Not to mention something major needs to be done to Detroit between Gordon Square and West 25th to compliment all the building happening on that stretch and it is not even a conversation yet.

I wonder if August Flucker's panties will bunch up over this demo like they did over the demo of those 6 long abandoned and isolated town homes in University Circle. This is truly a lost. An historic shopping center with active businesses and nothing special will take its place. I have a funny feeling he won't say a word. Wrong side of town.

First, this is a real shame. Second, I have always wondered if the developer of this shopping center, also developed the shopping center that once stood at the intersection of Lee and Harvard Roads (southeast corner) in Cleveland. They looked exactly the same and both had a Federal Dept store in pretty much the same location. Both great neighborhood shopping centers and walkable given the type of neighborhoods they were located even with the parking in front.

Since it is a Kassouf project I just thought it never started in the first place.

Hasn't this preliminary study work been going on in some form or another (I would imagine both field and office work which of course could be done anywhere) for almost a year now? I believe at least $5 million was authorized by one or another governmental entity for the necessary engineering and environmental studies and the work was suppose to take something like 18 months. @KJP would be more on top of this.

Those renderings are actually not that horrible. Like all the glass. Should do much to improve the Cedar Rd experience even if it probably won't increase street activity that much. Hopefully employees will leave their fortress and walk down Cedar to the new grocery store a few blocks east. Would have been nice if they had given this much thought to the dental clinic on Chester.

Reviewing both the Cleveland and Columbus applicant lists, I just think that many of these projects are certainly less than "transformative". It looks like, at least at the application stage, hopefully not at the agency level, this program is considered just another form of government subsidies for run of the mill projects that probably would happen in any event rather than what I thought the program was going to be and what I think the goal of the original legislation was-that is encouraging very large mix use projects in the urban cores that would totally remake an area and encourage additional development-sort of like the original plan for Nucleus. While I understand the politics of what the program became, especially considering how long it took to get through the legislature, I would have preferred a program exclusive to large cities, bigger credits (more like a total of $150 million) and projects larger in size-more like 30 stories and/or a million square feet. Initiate some other program for these lesser stars. In the end you would probably only get 3-4 apps per round but the credits would be encouraging huge projects that might not normally get done in an Ohio city otherwise.

My problem is the location of these few trees, not trees in front of buildings in general. I think they will distract from the grand entrance to the terminal and would not be an aesthetic that most architects would believe appropriate at that spot.

I don't know if "percolating" projects would qualify for a TMUD. The agency seems favor projects that are already started or are shovel ready and need a boost to get them over the finish line.

I am neither a botanist nor architect, but as a lay person I am having problems with a couple elements of these plans. First, I think planting trees directly in front of the grand entrance to the Terminal Tower, not to mention any ancillary plantings which may be in included in the plans, could- in fact I think will- take away from the buildings architectural details and the overall original vision for the building. I wonder if some architects on the board could weigh in with opinions regarding this and perhaps share some example where this has worked with a similarly situated older building. Also, all that proposed fussiness in front of the building might just get in the way of people, especially if the sidewalks in front of the building ever see the kind of traffic that was normal years ago. I also question whether that area gets enough sunlight, although again this is hardly something I know much about. Also concerned about going the "planter" route in other areas Historically we see they just don't work downtown, whether as a result of poor implementation or just poor maintenance. Trees in planters downtown seem to always look insipid, or they just plain die after a few years. I don't know if it is a root issue or what. Plus they seem to get in the way and people just use them as trash containers. I much rather like the look you see all over downtown Chicago as well as in the neighborhoods with trees in planting beds surrounded by ground vegetation. Of course that look requires pretty wide sidewalks but the trees simply see to do better when in the ground rather than in planters.

Will be interesting to see how those second attempt projects fair and whether they learned anything from the previous go around.

Really. "in all fairness to the GOP"...you mean the party that used reconciliation to pass a huge tax break for the wealthy.

I don't know about single family homes but when I was in town for a week about 4 years ago it seemed like you could not walk 10 feet without running into another huge apartment development, both in the city and in the burbs. However nothing remarkable architecturally . Lots of those 4-5 story rectangles you see all over the place.

So Denver is on this list. Just four years ago people (especially 20 somethings) were pouring into Denver. Now there is an exodus in such a short period of time. While I know for a fact prices in Denver sky rocketed starting right after the end of the recession till now, this does seem crazy that there would be such a quick turn around.